TV.Licensing.

[whiplash]

Should it be free for the older generation?

[Ceam]

Should it be free for the older generation?

Think it should be means tested. If someone has plenty of money what's the point in giving them a free licence? It's £12.50 a month. I wonder if they kick off about paying for their sky t.v.?

[silver fox]

Think it should be means tested. If someone has plenty of money what's the point in giving them a free licence? It's £12.50 a month. I wonder if they kick off about paying for their sky t.v.?

Means testing will probably cost much more to administer than any perceived savings, plus many pensioners simply do not claim for things they are entitled to, would also query how many pensioners are devotees of SKY or indeed any subscription broadcaster.

Whichever way you stack it, phrase or attempt to explain it, the reality is, here we have what amounted to a universal benefit for over 75s, which is being taken away.

Of course with our present government is this just the thin edge of the wedge? if they get away with this what's next? fuel allowance, travel concessions, prescription charges.

I am as aware as any one else the financial position of pensioners can and does vary wildly, the odds are very high that the lowest paid pensioners will almost invariably be those without access to the internet, which will probably be the way of processing any means testing, or by lengthy form filling, that alone will put those most in need out of the picture.

Let's not forget most if not all pensioners are on fixed income, any increase in costs means something else has to be cut, most pensioners have no means of supplementing their income to cover increased charges.

[Toodles McGinty]

I was for means testing, but as SF said, first it's the TV licence, then it is prescription, bus passes, etc.

What else will they take away?

They've paid into the system their entire lives. Such things should be seen as a right, not a benefit.

The government made free TV licences available. They shouldn't just push the burden of it onto the BBC. Now whether the funding of the BBC itself should be under review or not is another question entirely.

[salus.populi]

would also query how many pensioners are devotees of SKY or indeed any subscription broadcaster.
.

Sky has been around for nearly 3 decades so it's not as if it's some new fangled mystery that stereotypical technophobic old folk can't understand.
I doubt people stop their sports subscriptions when they hit 65.

[gsgsgs]

When my father passed away I completed a 'tell us once' form, this helped as most government departments were notified rather than myself having to ring round.

Surely something similar could be set up for the population, you provide your details, income, savings etc as you do now for benefits all linked to our NI number, this way things such as fuel allowance could be easily verified if we went to a means tested system, indeed if they run the data then it could easily throw out all benefits a person is entitle to, that way you cut out the endless form filling and the needy don't miss out.

Should we fund the BBC in different ways, adverts don't bother me in the slightest!

Could the BBC cut costs, why isn't there a centralised news broadcast over the BBC radio stations radio 1 & 2 both have hourly news reports but different broadcasts, I don't listen to the other but guess they all have there own news slots!

[silver fox]

Sky has been around for nearly 3 decades so it's not as if it's some new fangled mystery that stereotypical technophobic old folk can't understand.
I doubt people stop their sports subscriptions when they hit 65.

You're correct most elderly don't cancel their SKY subscription, because they never had it in the first place, not because they were unknowing of technology , but mainly because they saw SKY for what it was, ie; an attempt to take over a monopoly of broadcasting, now they have achieved a take over of many major sporting events funded by subscribers, in other words SKY subscribers have created the monopoly, pay out extra money so that you can be ripped off, sounds like a plan.

[silver fox]

Should we fund the BBC in different ways, adverts don't bother me in the slightest!

The BBC is the last refuge from utterly pointless adverts, I personally detest trying to watch say a half hour programme and see about 20 mins programme content.

There are programmes on commercial TV which I just simply switch off rather than watch the inane drivel from the advertisers and as for "paying" extra to watch even more ads, you must be joking.

[salus.populi]

You're correct most elderly don't cancel their SKY subscription, because they never had it in the first place, not because they were unknowing of technology , but mainly because they saw SKY for what it was, ie; an attempt to take over a monopoly of broadcasting, now they have achieved a take over of many major sporting events funded by subscribers, in other words SKY subscribers have created the monopoly, pay out extra money so that you can be ripped off, sounds like a plan.

If only.

I fail to see that people who flocked to buy their Sky Sports subscriptions in their 30s suddenly had such a dramatic awakening when they reached their 60s.

[silver fox]

If only.

I fail to see that people who flocked to buy their Sky Sports subscriptions in their 30s suddenly had such a dramatic awakening when they reached their 60s.

Why talk of people in there 60s, the TV licensing issue applies to over 75s, quite a difference. Let's see how many find SKY essential viewing when they are in receipt of basic state pension, remember many current over 70s didn't have the opportunity to take out pension plans, how the next generation will fare, only time will tell.

[said]

I was for means testing, but as SF said, first it's the TV licence, then it is prescription, bus passes, etc.

What else will they take away?

They've paid into the system their entire lives. Such things should be seen as a right, not a benefit.

The government made free TV licences available. They shouldn't just push the burden of it onto the BBC. Now whether the funding of the BBC itself should be under review or not is another question entirely.

When transistor radios were introduced, they stopped the Radio Licences. Televisions have been available as pocket sized devices for years, people use portable sets in caravans, on boats etc., who is going to check up on every one of these sets? The number of people claiming to own, and pay a licence for black and white televisions is suspiciously large. The licence should be banned completely.

If the government need to raise money they should introduce a motor way tax for people driving in from abroad. Several countries in Europe already have such a tax or similar.

[Rhino-Hamster]

Personally, only my opinion, I don't think anyone should have to pay a TV licence. I have never agreed with it.
I do have Sky, I record everything on series record, and just fast forward the adverts. I still have to pay my TV licence though, for the privilege of my children watching kids channels that I pay a premium for. I think I'm more annoyed at myself for that one though

[Ceam]

Why talk of people in there 60s, the TV licensing issue applies to over 75s, quite a difference. Let's see how many find SKY essential viewing when they are in receipt of basic state pension, remember many current over 70s didn't have the opportunity to take out pension plans, how the next generation will fare, only time will tell.

And being means tested will still let them have a free t.v. licence.


I don't get this reach 65/75 and living should be free ideal. At least these poor pensioners are getting a state pension, Something that isn't guaranteed for future generations.
My parents are not well off, but after heated debates over Brexit agreed they are one of the most fortunate generations ever, and they are in their 80's. Oh and by the way they do have Sky. I guess some are less tech phobic than others.

[AdmiralAckbar]

The debate should really be about National Insurance ... https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance which states "You pay National Insurance contributions to qualify for certain benefits and the State Pension."

The government in power decides what those benefits should be.

It's not just about TV licences - there have been numerous changes to the pension age, affecting women moreso than men.

The current government cares more about giving tax cuts to high earners rather than rewarding those people who have paid a lifetime of National Insurance hoping for certain benefits as a result.

There will be excuses of course (austerity etc) but party politics always comes back to the core principles of their organisation.

Just remember all this next time you have the opportunity to vote, and use your vote wisely.

[Ceam]

The debate should really be about National Insurance ... https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance which states "You pay National Insurance contributions to qualify for certain benefits and the State Pension."

The government in power decides what those benefits should be.

It's not just about TV licences - there have been numerous changes to the pension age, affecting women moreso than men.

The current government cares more about giving tax cuts to high earners rather than rewarding those people who have paid a lifetime of National Insurance hoping for certain benefits as a result.

There will be excuses of course (austerity etc) but party politics always comes back to the core principles of their organisation.

Just remember all this next time you have the opportunity to vote, and use your vote wisely.

Partly because we live longer, there for spend more time retired. Pretending everything can come from a limited fund doesn't help anyone. Priorities have to be made. Remember that next time you vote too.